Talk:Niall Ferguson

What is the point of Wikipedia?
Many of the comments here, both pro and con, confuse two issues. One is whether NF is right or left, or loved by the right or left. That is not an issue for Wikipedia, unless his work is so bad as to not merit attention except on political grounds. It is not.

There is a different, and more serious issue which should be part of this entry: his work is actually quite mediocre. Without his endless self-promotion, his wife's connections, etc., he would be viewed for what he is, a not very good popularizer of claims that are banal, wrong, or not his own.

I say this with some authority; I do not want to reveal my identity, but I can say in all seriousness that even those who agree with him think he has done almost nothing serious as a scholar, and that none of his work since the Rothschild book can be taken at all seriously. I should also say that even that work leans very heavily on the work of others, and he does not acknowledge that truth. The work since often is little more than a summary of what others have done, and again, he is not always generous about acknowledging that he is just repeating something already said better, elsewhere. Magacepas (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you believe this to be the case, please be bold and edit the article to reflect this, making sure to add reliable sources for the material that you add. For a topic such as history, the best sources are likely to be found within the academic literature.  Also, given your remarks, it sounds like you could have a conflict of interest — don't let that stop you editing, but do be careful that material you add conforms to appropriate guidance.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  13:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. But it of course raises a general issue: most people who actually know enough to discuss something like this will have a conflict of interest, at some level. And for the record, I once tried to add some critical commentary on another living person, complete with citations to very negative book reviews, and it was immediately deleted. I was not even allowed to note some very plain facts (for example, that the person writes on a European topic but never cites anything that is not in English...) Magacepas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Editing the biographies of living people is slightly more complicated than for other articles because we must conform to extra guidance. Also, guidance the that applies to all articles is often enforced more carefully when a living breathing person is the subject of an article.  If, as you say, you added very negative reviews, you must be careful that this still conforms to a neutral point of view.  The books may have had positive review too.  Best regards, --P LUMBAGO  14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Niall Ferguson's underlying narrative is clearly right-wing, with a few observations to placate people on the left thrown in to create the perception of balance. @Magacepas, one of the great problems of Wikipedia which is yet to be resolved is the fact that some editors sit on pages and impose their worldview on the topic at hand. So while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", don't expect your edits to stay for very long. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It didn't. The edit from User:Magacepas suggesting that Ferguson was making "laughable" claims and taking the credit for the work of others was a contravention of the WP:BLP policy; it wasn't removed as an imposition of any page-sitter's world view. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Magacepas. You have stated the problem clearly and accurately, for all the good it will do: he continues playing the media and providing an academic fig leaf for big money.88.110.112.62 (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. I can't figure out whether Magacepas's is motivated by academic, jealousy, political ideology, or a mixture of all three. For what it's worth, I note that the criticism section vis-a-vis the British Empire is two and half time the length devoted to what he has actually said on the subject. That doesn't feel right for a encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.147.172 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Scientific career?
Why does the sidebar summary say "Scientific career"? It doesn't look like he has any science background at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.54.48 (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is because of infobox scientist used on the page - may be an incorrect choice? Keith D (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this resolved? BLP should have used other ki nd of Infobox, say, "historian" or "author"!?-- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  18:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

"Cash nexus" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cash nexus. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson bibliography
I created a Niall Ferguson bibliography page, to shorten this article and so people can expand and better that list and rekejigger this "selected" bibliography here. Please make both pages better! TuckerResearch (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

University of Austin (Private institution)
I recently became aware of Mr. Ferguson's association with a new university, University of Austin. UATX  https://www.uaustin.org/. He is a trustee and a faculty member. His wife is a fellow there, and on board of advisors. UATX will welcome its first class of students Fall 2024. This can be reviewed and included somewhere in the main articles of this Wikipedia entry. I am a novice at entering comments on Wikipedia, so I hope I put this subject in the right place. At the moment, I don't feel qualified to create a new entry regarding Ferguson and this university.

There is a Wikipedia entry for UATX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Austin where Mr. Ferguson is mentioned in "Further Reading" Markmollymags (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this @Markmollymags, I've now done an update accordingly. Though I couldn't quite work out what the subject's ongoing relationship with the institution is meant to be, so I've just left it as "founder." MatthewDalhousie (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)